[Scarabin]

BBO seems to have denied me access to the Bridge Material Review forum. When I try to access the forum I get the message "You cannot post a new topic" And all the existing topics show "This topic is locked". It seems to be aimed at me personally as other users tell they can access the forum freely. I seem to be able to access other forums. Please help

[Scarabin]

So as a next step I registered again under another alias(Aimsear) and tried the Bridge Material Review forum. Same problems, same result. I think it may have something to do with the log-in mechanism but that is just a guess. Still looking for help. Are there any administrators out there? Come on I can hear you breathing.

[barmar]

See my answer in the BBO Support Forum.

[inquiry]

When I set up the bridge review forum, I seem tor recall setting some minimum number of post a user must have before posting. It seemed like a good idea at the time, so that established members could share their ideas about software, books, etc with others without having first time spammers free range. So far, we have only one complaint about this policy,so I don't see an urgent need to change it. You could always write a post somewhere else, and if it is more appropriate in the material section, on of the adminstrators (like me) could move it. Or in a few more post,you will meet the requirements to post in the bridge review forum.

I apologize if this has caused you any problems, but like I said, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Antrax]

inquiry, on 2012-January-21, 00:44, said:

So far, we have only one complaint about this policy,so I don't see an urgent need to change it.

lol. So two things:
a) You can add my voice as "complaining" about this feature. Especially when it's not documented and the error message is misleading. How many users may have tried to access it, failed and didn't complain to you here?
b) How much spam have you prevented? Occasionally people do spam here. Does it matter if it's in bridge material review or in general bridge discussion? You suggest the OP post somewhere else - if it's effective why would a spammer not do the same, and if not, how is it a solution?

[Scarabin]

Hi Inquiry Just to add to my apology on the GIB forum I guess that as I get older I tend to assume BBO and indeed the world is run for my personal benefit! So sorry again

[barmar]

Scarabin, on 2012-January-21, 02:46, said:

Hi Inquiry Just to add to my apology on the GIB forum I guess that as I get older I tend to assume BBO and indeed the world is run for my personal benefit! So sorry again

If you just keep discussing why you can't post, pretty soon you'll hit the magic number!

[Antrax]

Or maybe you can do away with this policy?

[onoway]

Antrax, on 2012-January-23, 11:49, said:

Or maybe you can do away with this policy?

If a person has never involved themselves with BBO forums before (possibly never even having played on the site!) then why should BBO be a platform for them to flog their product?

BBO does so much and has so much on the plate to start out with, things like this must be a small help in letting the staff and volunteers focus on more productive things. I for one, appreciate what they already do and don't grudge them such a filter.

[Scarabin]

Thanks Barmar,Antrax, and Onoway for saying it all for me. Even if it earns me one more post may I make one point clear: I am engaged in writing the most magnificent, most astounding Bridge program the world has ever seen but since it is light years away from completion and I am past my use-by date I have no intention of flogging it or even mentioning it! Here is the thing I have developed an interest in artificial intelligence and the optimum approach to bridge programming. And i would like to post about this, and about what has already been done. Far from trying to sell you anything I would hope to learn from other people's experience. Finally I do not resent Inquiry's threshold of 25 posts I do wonder whether about 10 would not have fulfilled the same function?

[Antrax]

onoway, on 2012-January-23, 14:56, said:

If a person has never involved themselves with BBO forums before (possibly never even having played on the site!) then why should BBO be a platform for them to flog their product?

BBO does so much and has so much on the plate to start out with, things like this must be a small help in letting the staff and volunteers focus on more productive things. I for one, appreciate what they already do and don't grudge them such a filter.

I'm sorry, but have you seen my previous post?
a) What evidence have you seen of this "product flogging"?
b) What makes you think this policy is effective at preventing it?
It's very common to consider a potential problem, then invent a solution, then implement it without any way to measure the success of this solution. However, that doesn't mean BBO, which is composed of fairly intelligent people, should fall for this trap.

[onoway]

Antrax, on 2012-January-24, 00:58, said:

I'm sorry, but have you seen my previous post?
a) What evidence have you seen of this "product flogging"?
b) What makes you think this policy is effective at preventing it?
It's very common to consider a potential problem, then invent a solution, then implement it without any way to measure the success of this solution. However, that doesn't mean BBO, which is composed of fairly intelligent people, should fall for this trap.

My post wasn't accusing anyone of anything and wasn't intended to be specific. I think it is a very sensible policy in general. BBO is after all, a commercial enterprise and has its own and other products for sale. So it seems only sensible to me that it asks for some demonstrated participation in the site before it opens the doors to other people's stuff.

On other forums I belong to I have certainly seen people flogging products and the ID associated with such posts is never seen before or afterwards. Such posts are not useful to the other forum participants as the post is clearly motivated to get people to buy, rather than being something brought forward for discussion and consideration. Those posters are simply coat tailing on someone else's work. It's really only another version of finding ads in your emails.

Requiring participation before you can bring a program or product to the attention of BBO members isn't inventing a solution to a problem that MIGHT occur, it's identifying a problem that DOES occur, and heading it off.

[barmar]

The thing is, someone who wants to hawk their products can do so in any of the other forums here. We have a process for dealing with them: someone (usually Ben) deletes them. It hasn't been a big problem, intervention has been required once every 3-4 months I think. So why do we think this process isn't adequate for the BMR forum?

[inquiry]

Not a lot of thought went into it. I decided to create a new forum using the new software, I saw I could llimit to people with a history in the forum, and having just dealt with a spam post (at that time) I decided to make some minimal number of post a requirement. Until this thread, it hasn't been mentioned, at least to me, and I hadn't thought of it since. This is not the only limit. Voting for post is also one that requires some number of your own post before you can vote. Rain set that one up I think, after we experienced people creating new accounts just to vote their own post up (or post of their buddies). So at least in that case, there was a clear reason to have such a rule. Not entirely sure if it needed in the case of bridge material review forum, since spammers, when they do come, tend to post in multiple forums anyway.... and thanks to all of you who click them so I get an email on the spam and can get to it quickly.